Science desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 7

Balloons

What happens to a balloon when its lost into the sky? How about when a huge mass of balloons is released like this? --Russoc4 01:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They rise until they pop and fall back down Coolotter88 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How far do they go? --Russoc4 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had one go from Kingston upon Hull (northern UK) to the Loire Valley (mid-France). →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you track the balloon? bibliomaniac 1 5 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We released a lot of balloons, each with a tag on. If anyone found the balloon and tag, they could fill in where they found it. Our address was also on the tag, so the finder could post it back to us. It was done as a school fund-raiser - people could "buy" a balloon, and the ones that got furthest in the "race" won a prize.

We got plenty back from southern England, and a few made it across the channel. Obviously it's not a very good scientific method for testing how far a balloon can travel - it relies on the balloon travelling to somewhere that it will be found, the tag intact, and the finder being able to understand / being bothered to send the tag back. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they pop? Do they reach an equilibrium altitude? Aaadddaaammm 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They pop because as they go higher and higher, the atmospheric pressure gets lower, so the pressure inside it becomes relatively higher, making it swell bigger and bigger till it pops. Adam2288 T C 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And any chance that something like what happened with the ducks here could happen with the balloons? Aaadddaaammm 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't ballon release generally condemned now because marine critters eat the stuff and choke? --Zeizmic 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In some jurisdictions (for example, New Hampshire), mass releases are being made illegal.

Atlant 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we did one of these when I was little and one of them got from Essex(East England) to Texas. Nuts! Maybe they just stole a tag and filled it out :p 213.48.15.234 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone finds a balloon with a postcard to track how far it went, one possible mischievious response is to have someone mail the card back from a very distant location which the balloon itself did not actually reach. Edison 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anatomy and physiology

a young girl complains that she fatigues easily and seems mentally sluggish. There is swelling in the anterior neck. What condition is suspected and what are some possible causes and their treatments?216.170.153.148 02:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, this is homework. Please search for a possible answer using Wikipedia, other sites, a book, or some other material to derive your answer. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a major hint, though not quite the exact answer. If you have trouble with the homework after looking there, get back to us. - Nunh-huh 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if it's not a homework question, please see a doctor. We can't give medical advice. Aaadddaaammm 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer that discusses what would be the problem if it was a different problem, and includes a sexist slur because it is 'funner', and the whole discussion of this answer. All can be read by clicking 'show' at the side of this box.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Well, she is a girl....only puzzle is the neck thing. Other than head trauma which wasn't mentioned Encephalitis, Meningitis followed by Reyes Syndrome would be my top three choices for the unexplained neck pain. And if it's not homework, see a doctor. --Tbeatty 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Tbeatty has re-added his suggestions for the cause of "neck pain", which is not a symptom listed by the questioner. All three suggestions are, of course, therefore completely wrong. And he's re-added his sexist slur that "girls" are "mentally sluggish" - sorry about that. It's inappropriate for the reference desk, but he wants it here. A lot. If you want an informed answer, and the one which your teacher wants, see the link I provided. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lighten up. My answer was funner. But fatigue, mental sluggishness, pediatric and swelling of the neck sounds a lot like Encephalitis or Meningitus. While you wait for TSH tests, I'm prescribing anti-biotics as prophylactic measure. --Tbeatty 04:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you insist on giving wrong answers, but apparently you do. Because they're "funner", apparently. Neither encephalitis nor meningitis (note spelling) cause anterior neck swelling. - Nunh-huh 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you already mentioned hypothyroidism? I expanded it to general complaints about the neck. Sorry that it offended you so much. as for the spelling, sorry if I type too fast. Since I had spelled it correctly previously, I don't know why you can't chalk it up tp a typo. 'i' and 'u' are next to each other. thanks for playing. --Tbeatty 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there already was a correct answer, three extra wrong answers weren't really needed, expecially in answer to a question never asked regarding "general complaints about the neck". The reference desk isn't a place to publish your free associations. - Nunh-huh 05:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. I gave three links inside Wikipedia that are concerned with the three main sympotms provided (mental sluggishness, pediatric, fatigue, neck swelling/pain). I generally don't like to do other peoples homework but if I can point them to articles that expand their knowledge on related subjects, I do it. This is the Reference Desk, not the Answer Desk. Sorry if I pissed in your Wheaties, it was not my intent. Done with this thread. thanks. --Tbeatty 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: the questioner would be well-advised not to take "answers" from someone who (even now) fails to distinguish between pain and swelling. The reference desk's function is to lead people to the right answers, not lead them astray. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! None of that, play nice!Aaadddaaammm 06:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPod's capacity for headphone impedance

Is my first-generation iPod Nano capable of pushing AKG K240 headphones (impedance 55 ohms per channel)? If not, how much would it cost to get some kind of preamp unit? Neon Merlin 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my experience with (non-iPod) mp3 players that using large headphones drains the battery faster. I can't think of a good reason why, since they should be the same impedance as earbuds, but I've never bothered to investigate it quantitatively. Nimur 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the iPod specification allows (>=32 ohms?), but I do know that some old Koss Pro-4AA headphones of mine (which I believe to be 8 ohms) would not work at all on my 3G iPod.

Atlant 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPod earphones are 32 ohms, see [1]. I can't think of any problems besides you draining the battery faster, as Nimur mentioned. J Are you green? 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... For some reason, I found myself in the Australian Apple site through my Google search... its the same in the UK and US, by the way - [2] and [3]. J Are you green? 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the headphones are higher impedance, they will draw less energy, not more. As Atlant's anecdote points out, sufficiently low impedance headphones can draw too much current from the output amplifier, typically causing an internal circuit protection to kick in and you to hear no output. If the OP is correct about his earphones' impedance rating, there shouldn't be a problem (though the impedance matching may not be optimal). Incidentally, it isn't very difficult to buy or even build a pre-amplifier for this purpose. -- mattb 02:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Illness-

I am a retired Lutheran pastor and lately as I visit elderly persons more and more I am finding folks whose homes are absolute messes. Here are well educated persons who have not cleaned their homes for years. The rooms are total messes. They bring things into the house and never ever carry anything away. I was in a home last week where there was just a path from the front door to what should have been a living room. That room was filled with junk, pure junk. For example there were two garbage cans in the room full of discards. There were boxes of stuff with old clothing piled on top. The piles were taller than me. There were boxs all over what should have been a table in the kitchen. The kitchen counters were covered with junk (out of date phone books, and old newspapers). It would be totally impossible for anyone to prepare a meal in that kitchen. I wanted to see the upstairs but was told that the junk up there is worse than what I saw on the main floor. The downstairs bathroom has not been cleaned for years. How can people live like that? More and more am I seeing this. People know this is not normal and do all they can to keep folks from visiting but they will not change. Is this some sore of mental illness which may or may not be associated with aging? Thanks for your attention to this matter. Robert S. Collins <email removed to prevent you being spammed>

Hello, Robert. It's quite a problem, I'm sure. Have a read of our article on the Collyer brothers to get an idea of just how far such messiness and hoarding can go. It might be an indication of mental illness such as OCD, but I'm not qualified to say, and we're not able to give out such diagnoses here. JackofOz 05:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of recent publicity on the problem of "collectors", partly as a result of the various plays on Edith and Edie Beale (Grey Gardens (musical), and another more fictionalized play whose name I can't remember). You might be interested in reading A Book of Reasons, by John Vernon, which is a sort of meditation written when the author's brother died and he found the house in chaotic disrepair, decrepit and full of trash. - Nunh-huh 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the condition is called compulsive hoarding. It is not an official psychiatric category (not in the DSM) but it describes what you speak of perfectly. --24.147.86.187 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would surmise that the will to clean is strongly linked with the will to live. Vranak

That is a very bold statement which makes alot of assumptions. -- Diletante 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surmise[4]: To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence. Like I said, I surmise.Vranak

I reckon this happens more often when people have been really poor in the past. Of course, having such a problem doesn't stop them from being otherwise virtuous.Polypipe Wrangler 22:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would differentiate between two cases. One is where only potentially useful items are kept, like broken TVs which could, in theory, be repaired. This seems like a simple case of the person's priorities being misplaced, seeing the potential fixed TV as more valuable than the space it takes up. A more serious problem is where things of no value whatsoever, like the classic bottles of urine in Howard Hughes' case, are retained. That, to me, is, indeed, a sign of mental illness. StuRat 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a report recently on tho local radio about, I believe, an elderly couple somewhere in Washington who were literally trapped under piles of junk that they were hording. One of them died from asphyxia. It can indeed be a very series problem. S.dedalus 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

universe

Is there day and night on other planets? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.44.157.164 (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. The best illustration I can find seems to be at Season. Day and night is caused by an astronomical object moving (rotating) so that different parts of it are facing the sun (or whatever other source of light is illuminating it, such as a distant star). Nimur 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But some planets (such as Mercury, IIRC) have their rotation phase locked to their revolution so that some points on the surface is always light or dark; there is no "day" on such planets. And even if I'm wrong about Mercury, consider Earth's moon relative to Earth; there's no Earthrise or Earthset as viewed from the moon.

Atlant 14:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When one of two bodies always faces the other it's called a Tidal Lock. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury, as our article says, is actually locked in a 2:3 spin-orbit resonance, which means it rotates three times in every two orbits. But this is indeed a somewhat unusual condition, with simple 1:1 tidal locking being more common. (We don't appear to have an article on spin-orbit resonance, but the relevant section in the Mercury article explains the issue. Incidentally, another remarkable article I stumbled upon while looking for this is Extraterrestrial skies, which describes how the situation would look to an observer on the surface of Mercury.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no Earthrise or Earthset as viewed from the moon, but there still is day and night. To not have day and night, the planet would have to be tidally locked to the Sun, and there are no planets like that in our solar system (although until about 40 years ago it was thought that Mercury was). --Anon, May 7, 22:47 (UTC).

Also note that on the distant dwarf planets Pluto and especially Eris, there isn't much difference between day and night, since, at that distance, the Sun just appears to be a bit brighter than the other stars. StuRat 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Much difference" is a rather vague phrase, though. It's quite easy to demonstrate that the sun at Pluto is hundreds of times brighter than a full moon at Earth, and the full moon provides quite a bit of light (easily discernable shadows, sufficient for reading, etc). The sun is significantly more than "just a bit" brighter than any other star regardless of where you are in the solar system. — Lomn 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that calculation from? My reasoning would be as follows: The moon has an albedo of 0.12 - meaning that it reflects back about 1/8th of the light that shines on it. So it's 8 times dimmer than the sun (that seems like too much...but that's what the numbers say). Pluto is 4400 million km from the sun at it's closest approach and the Earth is 152 million km from the sun - so it's 28 times further from the Sun than we are. Light intensity drops as the square of the range - so the Sun appears to be at least 780 times dimmer on Pluto than it does on Earth. The full moonlight on earth is much brighter than daylight on Pluto. What did I miss? SteveBaker 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, what you missed was that the Moon is not a mirror. It reflects about 1/8 of the light falling on it, but it does not reflect all that light in a particular direction -- it scatters it every which way. I think this introduces a correction factor equal to the fraction of a sky hemisphere occupied by the Sun (the light source) as seen from the Moon, or something of that order, anyway. Let's see, a hemisphere is about 20,000 square degrees, and the Sun as seen from the Moon is about the same size as the Moon seen from the Earth or 0.2 square degree, so the Moon would be less luminous than you compute by a factor of about 100,000, or less luminous than the Sun by a factor of about 800,000. Let's check that estimate by looking at the actual numbers. The Sun's apparent magnitude is -26.8 (see Sun, where it is called "visual brightness") and the full Moon is -12.7; a magnitude difference of 14.1 corresponds to a factor of 100^(14.1/5), which is about 440,000. So my calculation was in the right ballpark, anyway. And if the Sun is 780 times dimmer at Pluto, then it's still 440,000/780 = over 500 times brighter than the full Moon at the Earth. --Anonymous, May 9, 02:00 (UTC).

Oh - right - I see. Yeah - I was forgetting that not all of the reflected light from the moon ends up here. I could tell that my calculations didn't make sense - I just couldn't quite see why! I'm not sure I buy your approach to doing that correction though - it's not the apparent angular area subtended by the sun at the moon that matters. I think it would be best to use Lambert's cosine law and integrate over the hemispherical sunlit side of the moon...but it's late and I'm too tired to mess with it. Either way - I'm sure that puts the numbers way down below the Sun at Pluto which makes a lot more 'gut feel' sense. Thanks for the correction! SteveBaker 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right with the Lambert thing. I was basically trying to estimate it by imagining the whole sky hemisphere as a surface at the brightness of the Sun, then considering only the rays that (after scattering) would reach the viewer, then considering which of those rays would come from the actual location of the Sun and ignoring the rest. It ought to give the right order of magnitude, I figured. --Anon, May 10, 06:23 (UTC).

So it comes down to what you define as "day". Does a light 780 times weaker than the Sun still qualify as "daylight" ? Or, if we go with the Eris example, which, at Aphelion has a distance of 97.56 AU, this would give the Sun an apparent brightness of 1/97.56² or 1/9518 compared to the brightness of the Sun on Earth. That's pretty dim. StuRat 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. What earthly equivalent can we come up with for how bright the sun would appear if we were standing on Pluto at noon? The sun pumps out 10²⁶ watts of light. It's roughly 1.5x10¹¹ meters away from Earth - so by the wonders of inverse-range-squared math we know that this is equivalent to about a 4500 watt light held one meter from your face! That's pretty darned bright! Now, on Pluto, we decided that it's 780 times less bright than here on Earth - so that would be like a 6 watt light one meter from your face. That's maybe like a reasonably powerful flashlight [5]. So wandering around in daylight on Pluto would be more or less like the world is uniformly lit by flashlights positioned one meter above it's surface - and wandering around at night is like turning the flashlights off. I think that's enough of a difference to count as day/night - but whether you decide to call this "Daylight" or not is just a matter of words. The fact is that you could see quite clearly - it wouldn't seem dark - it would be considerably brighter than a room lit by half a dozen candles for example. SteveBaker 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Cell

We know that a fuel cell extracts energy from fuel(methanol example). What about if we supply energy to the cell, will the reverse take place( fuel form water & CO2)?210.212.194.209

With Hydrogen based fuel cells it is possible to diver the current into water hydrolysis to get Hydrogen and Oxygen, not sure about methanol though. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, it would probably be possible to make methanol from water and CO₂ in some manner, it just might not be very simple or efficient. The difficulty is that it's not enough to just reduce the carbon and the hydrogen; one would also have to make them assemble into molecules in just the right way. I'm not personally aware of any system that would do so for methanol, but we do have devices that can convert water and CO₂ into sugar (which is an even more complex molecule) — they're called plants. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Hydrogen based fuel cell mounted on a little car which anybody can buyfrom Kosmos and this works both ways. If this reaction would work the industry would use it. The formation of methanol from H2 and CO2 in an easy way is an unsolved quest!--Stone 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late 1960s rechargeable batteries

The Cal-Tech calculator (1967) of Texas Instruments, U.S. Patent No. 3,819,921, was the world's first battery-powered "pocket-sized" calculator.[6] It used 11 rechargeable batteries in groups of 3 larger ones (for the circuits) and 8 small ones (for the embedded thermal printer). The specifications of the '921 patent declared that these batteries are 1.5 V each. The Cal-Tech calculator used four bipolar ICs.

For the '921 patent, please visit http://www.google.com/patents and enter 3,819,921. Battery descriptions are on page 27.

In 1970, Canon shipped a "Pocketronic" calculator mainly under the TI design under TI's license. It used MOSFET ICs and was powered by 13 rechargeable Ni-Cd batteries in groups of 4 and 8.[7]

How could anyone in the 1960s get a 1.5 V rechargeable battery? -- Toytoy 12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The early calculators with rechargeable batteries that I saw just used Nicads (nominally 1.2 volts). Not sure what they could have gotten a steady 1.5 volts per cell from that was rechargeable in the 1960's and suitable for a pocket calculator. Edison 14:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the 1968 Allied Electronics (then at 100 N. Western Avenue, Chicago IL 60680) and found under "rechargeable batteries" only Eveready nickel-cadmium cells which they rated at 1.25 volts. An 'AA" size battery was rated at 45 mA (10 hour rate) and sold for 1.93. A "D" size was rated at 400 mA (10 hour rate) and sold for $5.69. The smallest, an N22 button cell, was rated at 2 mA (10 hour rate) and sold for $1.05. Today Allied Electronics sells a nicad D cell [8] for $7.47, an increase of just 31% in 39 years. Edison 23:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relation with days

ok so as alot of us notice mondays are a drag. i want to know though is there a scientific name for this? in other words is there a relation between the day we are in and the way our brain react to it? a good example is of course monday. its so slow on monday but is that because our brain percives it as slow?User:Maverick423 Im in ur science steeling ur gravity 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would note two causes. First, if you sleep in on Saturday and Sunday, your body will want to sleep in on Monday. So, getting up "early" will cause you to be tired all day. Second, if you expect a day to be slow, you will notice it as slow. If you expect a day to be fast, you will notice it as fast. You just simply ignore anything that is contrary to your expectation. There are more causes that may be noted. For example, our hospital has more administrative meetings on Monday than any other day - so less work is done. Also, there's a 24-hr process for surgeries. Since they only start on Sunday in emergency situations, Monday only has emergency surgeries. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not 100% what you were asking, but we do have an article on Working time that covers some of these effects such as Mondayitis, Hump day and TGIF (leaving two standard working days on which we apparently function normally; go figure). Confusing Manifestation 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our good humoured friends at Uncyclopaedia have coined their own scietific name for it: Mondayism Rockpocket 02:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We more-edumacated denizens of Wikipedia prefer Mondayitis. DMacks 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh thanks for the great links! wow sounds like this is serious i might have to get myself checked for this =) Maverick423 Says Im in ur science steeling ur gravities 13:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chipboard density

Anyone know chipboard density in llb/ sq ft or kg/sq m? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.223.242 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There are some typical densities on the Medium-density fibreboard page. DMacks 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun spots and tree ring growth

I learned a long time ago that when you sawed through a tree trunk, you saw the tree rings; each ring represents one year if growth. The rings grow at different rates on an approximately 11 year cycle. When there are lots of sup spots, there is a lot of growth, and vice versa. What is the precise physics which links the number of sun spots to the tree grwoing more rapidly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.136.33 (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

sunspots affect the temperature of the sun, and therefore the climate of the earth.

Oh boy, no. Sunspots correlate to the intensity of light reaching the earth and this was discovered by E. W. Maunder. This is a parallel effect of the same cause, sunspots are not the causation. I'm not sure about your question, but the field you're looking for is dendrochronology. I'll try and get the answer for you soon :) [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sunspot variations that Maunder discovered, which do seem to correlate to solar output and therefore climate, are not the 11-year cycle, but are much slower. --Anonymous, May 7, 22:49 (UTC).

I've never heard that tree rings vary every 11 years. They do vary, however, with rainfall, growing season length, climate, etc., but I don't believe any of these follow an 11 year cycle. StuRat 00:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've never heard of it either, but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To really establish this 11-year climate cycle, it would have to satisfy the following:

Statistically significant prevalence (11-year cycle occurs in many trees, all over the place)
Statistically significant correlation in phase of that cycle

I think it is very unlikely that this would be a more significant factor, than say, average rainfall, which has huge variance due to local effects. But this could get into a very complicated butterfly effect discussion about whether sunspots really change weather... Nimur 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sauna use / length of time inquiry

it would be appecreciated if you mention the length of time a person should be advised to stay inside the sauna, leave the sauna, coming back to the sauna... how many times and repetitions are advised... perhaps that coule be under the subcategory of health benefits or intructions

thx

Do you mean "what's the max time at temp X to avoid overheating the body ?". StuRat 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

starch question

I need to know what plants use starch for, how they make it, stuff like that. And I need to know how I can test something for the presence of starch. A quantitative test would be very useful.

Don't just refer me to the starch article, it is just about the uses of starch in food. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.18.115 (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Er, the first sentence of the starch article says "it is used by plants as a way to store excess glucose." Later in the article is a section explaining several tests (though I think they're mainly qualitative). DMacks 18:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but apart from that. I already know it is a form of glucose and a store, but I need details and more information, enough to write a few paragraphs about it.

A mixture of starch and iodine will turn black. It happens to be mentioned in Starch#Tests. Someguy1221 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're writing "a few paragraphs about it", you'll certainly want to use more sources than just Wikipedia. Googling for starch test quantitative gave me several useful-looking hits about that part of your assignment. We have no idea what academic level we're talking about here, so it's going to be hard to suggest places you can go to learn about "details and more information" beyond "stores glucose" (note, it is not really a "form of glucose" on an appropriate level...what kinds of details and types of information do you need? DMacks 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to use more sources later. And my 'academic level' is GCE in england, I have no idea what it is called in other countries.

Do you mean GCSE? For the benefit of our foreign friends, this is about age 15/16. Starch is only a form of glucose in the same way that a house is a form of brick; ie, it isn't. Starch is made up of glucose molecules. If you've done digestion, you'll have learnt that. This might be a little over your head; look for the yellow. This google search suggests people aren't entirely sure exactly how plants make starch, although I would feel more comfortable if someone with more botanical/biological knowledge could comment. This Google search suggests you'll have trouble finding a quantitative test for starch, but iodine really is excellent (and all you need to know at GCSE) for testing for its presence. You could try tests based on the darkness of the iodine, but I really don't see that being terribly accurate. As much as Google is your friend, your best bet is probably textbooks at school and in the library. They'll tend to be written for the level of knowledge you have, and cover what you need to know. Skittle 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not GCSE. Sorry, I should have made it a bit clearer, I meant GCE A2 (age 17/18).

Ah, that makes a bit more sense. Glad I asked! GCE covers a lot of ground... I maintain the library is probably the best place to find the sort of thing. Your school library probably has a lot of books on the topic, and they're probably written in a way that makes it easy to follow. Of course, you might strike gold with a botanist round here, but it's unlikely... Skittle 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ozone

Can we see the ozone by the telescope? if the asnswer is yes/no how?

Well, According to this wikipedia article, the Ozone_layer was discovered by Charles_Fabry and Henri Buisson, who seem to have been physicists that specialized in optics.

This article Claims In 1879-81, W. N. Hartley and A. Cornu measured the ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth and found a sharp cutoff, which they correctly attributed to ozone. These pioneering measurements also showed that the bulk of the ozone must be in the upper atmosphere rather than near ground level. The ozone layer had been discovered.

This definately gives credit to Cornu and Hartly discovering Ozone in the atmosphere using Spectroscopy. Charles Fabry is not mentioned.

So the answer would be Yes, you could detect the ozone in the atmosphere with a telescope if you had the proper spectroscopic equipment available. -Czmtzc 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what they asked. They asked if it is possible to see the ozone layer, which I presume means only in the visible spectrum. According to Ozone, the gas Ozone is pale blue to the human eye. I'd assume this makes for a more definitive yes. Good luck spotting that blue from the blue of plain ol' sky though. i kan reed 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good portion of the blue we see when we look at the sky is from ozone. StuRat 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Diffuse sky radiation for some current thinking about why the sky is blue. The sky I usually see isn't really the same shade as I see coming out of a lab ozone generator. DMacks 00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magmatic convection currents

Can any one direct me to a good article which explains how these currents work?Bastard Soap 18:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plate tectonics? User:Maverick423 Im in ur science steeling ur gravity 20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah here we go i read through it a bit to get you this article as well Mantle convection Maverick423 is Im in ur science steeling ur gravities 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental IIIness

What mental illnesses are related to homosexuality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.118.76 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

None that I am aware of. Vranak

I dont belive there are any mental illnesses related to it, its more of a choice of prefrence. however there are lots of STDs related to intercourse betwen them. Maverick423 Says Im in ur science steeling ur gravities 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of STDs related to intercourse among the heterosexual population as well. --LarryMac 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that sexual orientation could fairly be described as a 'choice of preference' (or just a choice). A preference though, sure. Vranak

Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental illness in itself. Today, homosexuals suffer a higher incidence of mental problems such as depression and suicide ~~(ref: [9])~~ (legit ref: [10]). --TotoBaggins 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Hold the horses. You are quoting a study from a website called "the national association for research and therapy of homosexuality"!! I've never heard anything more ridiculous. Until the mid 1800 slavery was legal, and today most ethnic minority groups suffer MUCH greater incidents of problems such as substance abuse, incarceration, depression and suicide. Are you going to claim these are racial problems? Don't be a fool, these things aren't related to any specific minority group, they are a commonality amongst all minority groups, because as minority groups they fulfil a specific demographic which isn't mainstream and are marginalised as a result. Vespine 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Hold your horses. I happened to know from earlier reading that homosexuals suffer from depression and suicide at a higher rate than average, so googled for references to that effect. You're right that that site seems suspect (I just briefly looked at its home page, saw legit scientist Francis Collins, and thought it was OK), but I still believe the fact of the matter to be the same (I've changed the reference above). I agree that it's probably due to stigma, and perhaps loneliness due to being restricted to a much smaller-than-average dating pool. As for minorities of all stripes suffering higher rates of social problems, that may be true, but simply quoting the fact doesn't mean one is implying that it's due to some inherent flaw in that group. --TotoBaggins 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to TotoBaggins, he didn't claim homosexuality causes a higher incidence of mental problems, simply that they suffer from them. Whether that is cause or effect was not clarified, therefore is is somewhat unfair to label him foolish. Rockpocket 02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes, I hope toto doesn't mistake the intention of my post, i wasn't calling them a fool, I should have wrote don't be a fool and assume those are related in the way I am sure that article is trying to imply:).Vespine 06:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, what mental illnesses are related to heterosexuality? S.dedalus 05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is fair. There is *enormous* social pressure to be straight (including within one's own family), most of the dating pool is straight, straights are allowed exclusive access to upgrades to their relationships, no one gets beaten to death for being straight, there are no anti-straight hate groups, and on and on. It's absurd to suggest that homosexuality doesn't affect a person's sense of well-being, which has an enormous effect on mental health. --TotoBaggins 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to be fair to S.dedalus, I don't think he was suggesting "homosexuality doesn't affect a person's sense of well-being." I think the more pertinant point is that one's sexuality itself does not "lead" to mental illness, but that the expression of one's sexuality within our social environment can effect one's mental health. Rockpocket 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that statement. Afaik there are no mental illnesses related to homosexuality per se, or to heterosexuality per se. What happens to individual homosexuals or heterosexuals in the living out of their lives is a different story. JackofOz 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points of contact

If two surfaces are pushed together, how small will their final separation typically be? Obviously it will be non-zero, since we're not talking about perfectly smooth surfaces, but on what distance scales are we talking? Will it be nanometres, picometres? What is the limiting favour that prevents them from getting closer? I have a hard time believing it's due to the atoms' outer electrons bumping off each other...though I can't think what else it could be. Thanks, Icthyos 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question cannot be answered because once you go down to the scale of atoms, you will realize that atoms do not have a hard surface. As such, you can never say where one atom begins and another atom ends. Without a beginning point and an end point, how can your measure the distance between them? Ohanian 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is indeed the like-charges repelling each other that prevents two objects from passing through each other. You might be interested in solid, cold welding and Casimir effect. --TotoBaggins 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just have a hard time scaling up from a rigid pattern of atoms to a macroscopic solid - if there's no "hard" surface, is it purely the electrostatic repulsion that stops them from pushing together any further? When I push my hands together, say, am I creating tiny pockets of vacuum by pressing certain regions together so far that all of the air is excluded? Or is the minimum separation greater than the size of the atoms found in air? Icthyos 22:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The atoms in your hands are not "hitting" each other, they are repulsing each other very strongly. Yet, it is electrostatic force, just a teenie weenie scale. M.manary 23:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The repulsive force between atoms (assuming there's no static electric charge or magnetic fields at work, and assuming they're not going to bond) will become noticable on the order of the size of the atoms themselves, which is typically in the range of a tenth of a nanometer. As far as defining where one atom begins and one ends, the volume of an atom is often defined as the region that contains 90% of the electron probability (see electron cloud), although this is completely arbitrary. You can also talk about how far apart the nuclei are. Also, keep in mind that in many cases, only a tiny fraction (less than one percent) of the atoms on the surfaces in contact are actually at this minimal seperation from one another. Someguy1221 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic force microscopy is a nice application of atom—atom repulsion repulsion and the limits of the idea of "contact" on that scale. DMacks 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a macroscopic sense, the length scale of separation will be described by the roughness (see also Surface metrology and Asperity) of the surfaces. On a microscopic scale, yes it is the electrons repelling each other - "everyday" electrostatic repulsion (for instance, rubbing a balloon on your hair) might not look like much, but the force varies as 1/r². This means that for sufficiently small separations the electrons really do not want to be close to each other. But then at that scale you must also take into account the Pauli exclusion principle, which gives the electron clouds their shape and generally keeps stuff from being in the same place at the same time (with the same energy and momentum). Eldereft 12:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on human evolution?

Is there so-called "scientific consensus" that humans evolved from apes? I'm unsure if this has been definitively proven or if there is some lingering doubt among scientists. This question came about after reading Scientific opinion on climate change. Thank you all. Pizzachicken 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus I've heard is that modern humans and modern apes all evolved from some previous (and no longer existing) common ancestor, not humans "from" apes as your question suggests. DMacks 00:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only scientific debate that has really occured for the last 100 years is precisely how humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, how different species formed and branched off, etc. There is no evidence that humans evolved from anything other than a primate, or that humans have always existed as they do now. Someguy1221 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Shows you how much I know about this subject. Pizzachicken 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All living apes (including naked apes) are descended from other apes, so "evolved from apes" isn't exactly wrong, though taken literally it's almost trivial ("life-forms evolved from life-forms"). —Tamfang 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, according to the ape article, humans are apes. The common ancestor between us and the other great apes would probably also be tossed into the Hominidae family, if I've got my taxonomy right. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution's article talk page has an FAQ where the cite some study that only 99.84% of scientists believe in evolution, although my understanding is that the scientists that don't believe it are most computer scientists, engineers and mathematicians. The adage is nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution - and that's true. Furthermore, no "humans didn't evolve from apes proposal exists that doesn't contravene a dozen other well established scientific consensus (~99.85% agreement) WilyD 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "99.84% of scientists believe in evolution" refers to. What part of evolution do they believe in? I'm not sure if you're expanding on my question. My original question only referred to human evolution. Pizzachicken 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers usually come from small samples taken from large lists like people listed in American Men and Women of Science or the membership of the AAAS, and they include biologists, physicists, mathematicians, maybe computer scienctists and the like.--droptone 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe in evolution - there is no reason to assume that humans are somehow 'outside of the system'. A scientist doesn't "believe in" things in the way that you'd think of a religious belief. I'd prefer the phrase "are convinced by the evidence for". So I would imagine the number convinced about evolution but unconvinced by the evidence to including human evolution would be close to zero. We have a vastly better chain of evidence for apes-to-humans than we have for (say) a common ancestor for plants and animals - or the messy first step of getting from inorganic chemistry to self-replicating life. If you can stretch your mind to believe that the incredible diversity of life came from a single common ancestor that came about by sheer flook and then was the mother (and father) of all life - then it's hard to deny that chimps and humans - with their near-identical DNA - are anything other than close relatives. I've spent all my life in the sciences and I've yet to meet a scientist who believed in evolution but who felt that humans were an exception. So whilst I'm sure they exist, they aren't going to put a big dent in that 99.84% number. If you had doubt - realistic serious doubt based on facts and experimental evidence - then it would have to be for that very first step - abiogenesis is a serious test of one's belief in statistics! SteveBaker 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. I was wondering the inverse of what you're saying. That is, the number of scientists that are convinced of human evolution, but not evolution in the grand scale that you're talking about. Pizzachicken 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - well, I'd say there is some debate about the very first step in the arrival of life on earth. Most scientists (but nowhere near 99.84% I'd guess) believe that abiogenesis started it all off - the completely random formation, from non-living origins, of a self replicating RNA strand that went on to fill the oceans with the simplest possible life forms - that could then evolve into what we have now. The people who believe that (I'm one of them...more or less) are in the majority - but definitely not 99%. Others believe in panspermia - which really only delays the problem back in time - others feel that there is a loophole to permit 'divine intervention' at that point. Yet others feel that there had to be multiple starting points, not just one. There are a variety of minority opinions - mainly because we have no hard evidence for what really happened - and in the absence of evidence, science is on somewhat shakey ground. However, the 'abiogenesis' step is not a part of the theory of evolution per-se. SteveBaker 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible to believe that humans are somehow "outside the system". Some very famous evolutionists have advocated such a view! but it is pretty rare now-a-days. --24.147.86.187 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call 'foul'. We're talking living scientists - Wallace died 100 years ago - he didn't have access to DNA evidence and the fossil record was nowhere near as well researched as it is today. SteveBaker 02:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't have cared — DNA evidence etc. does not affect Wallace's views or interpretation. Now what probably would have changed them is the revolution in understanding how the mind worked, the neural roots of consciousness and all that. That's where his beef was, not in the relatedness of humans to apes (which he acknowledged — up to a point). --140.247.240.101 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is basically no doubt that the phylogenetic tree puts humans and apes in the same branch. Anyone inclined towards an evolutionary point of view (almost all scientists) would then easily see an evolutionary narrative in this fact. Now exactly how it happened is not at all clear. There is essentially no debate amongst those who subscribe to evolutionary theory that humans evolved from/as/whatever apes somehow. --24.147.86.187 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to butt in and remark on your usage of the phrase "definitively proven". Proofs, strictly speaking, do not exist outside of logic and mathematics. Science isn't in the business of proving things. While this is an accepted usage of the word "proof", it is largely useless when speaking about the scientific enterprise. Science is in the business of confirming hypotheses. So rather than wonder if scientists have "definitively proven" the modern theory of evolution, a more apt question is how well confirmed it is. And to answer that question, the main Wikipedia entry on Evolution should provide enough information. I don't mean to sound like an asshole philosopher but when people speak in terms of proof in science they are at risk of not understanding what science aims to do (How can they prove that some vitamin or mineral reduces risk of cancer one day then disprove it another?).--droptone 03:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I should've known that. Thank you.

I think the answers miss the fundamental question which isn't whether or not humans and modern apes have a common ancestor. That is pretty much established through multiple disciplines of science. The question is what has separated humans from animals and how did this "enlightenment" happen? Humans are unquestionably unique in the world. Even asking the question of how we evolved shows this uniqueness. How that uniqueness came about is crux of the problem and there is not consensus either scientifically or religiously. This is similar to your global warming analogy in that the scientific debate is not whether global warming exists but rather its cause (man-made or natural?), extent (how much warmer, if any will it get?) and consequences (will warming make the earth better or worse for its inhabitants?). Those questions get lost in the din of arguing existence rather than the real scientific questions that exist. --Tbeatty 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I thought the question was whether or not humans evolved from apes, not the process by which they did. Your question is interesting in its own right, but that doesn't mean that the answers were missing something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was directed more at the social argument that this question arises. The question was about scientific consensus. There certainly is scientific consensus that man and ape evolved from the same ancestor. But the reason this question is generally asked leaves us with no such consensus about the human condition. There is scientific consensus that humans and dogs have a common ancestor as well (as do all mammals) but apes are often chosen for this question because of the implications to social debates regarding evolution and creationism. the question is not framed properly to answer the underlying social question, and the answers are as equally limiting. A common mistake is to take this consensus and infer something that it is not. --Tbeatty 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you going on about? My apologies for being blunt, but your verbosity isn't making your point easier to understand. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shorter answer - If hte question is how the sentence posed it "scientific consensus that humans evolved from apes?" the scientific consensus is "humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor". If the question is as posed in the section title, "Consensus on Human evolution?" the answer is no as there are varied theories on how intelligence evolved as well as how "enlightenment" was achieved and even the number of intermediate species. Since we appear to be unique in the animal kingdom, hypothesis are difficult to test, therefore there are many hypothesis that cannot be disproven. --Tbeatty 05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only lingering doubt is whether creationists will give up their nonsense.--Kirby♥time 05:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

case in point. --Tbeatty 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they gave up their 'nonsense', they wouldn't be creationists anymore. When your world view says that there is an (unfalsifiable) 'creator' - then all scientific evidence is just irrelevent to you. If your god(s) can do magic - and has no limits whatever on his/her/their/its powers - then no scientific experiment can truly prove anything because the supernatural being can just jump in and dink with the results - or tweak your brain cells to make you think you saw the indicator solution go red when it really went blue. In a world with an unlimited god - there can be no science whatever. So you can't change these people's minds with any argument whatever - it's pointless to talk to them - a complete exercise in futility. Scientists who believes in god(s) are kidding themselves - either their belief is flawed (because there is no science to back it up) - or their science is flawed (because no conclusions can ever be drawn from any experiment they ever do). That's how we wind up with a number like 99.84% who believe in evolution. If you don't believe in it - the only alternative is religion - and then you just voted yourself off the island. SteveBaker 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as a scientist, not everything I believe is necessarily scientific. That doesn't mean it's flawed. For instance, I believe any book by Ann Rand is not worth reading - this is not a scientific belief, but it is a true belief. I believe cheesecake is good and olives are vile - again this isn't cientific, but it's not a flawed belief. WilyD 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. You have performed an unconscious theory/hypothesis/experiment cycle with cheesecake. You theorisised that you might like it. You came up with a hypothesis: "If I taste this and don't barf - then it's probably OK". Your experiment was then to taste some - and the outcome of that experiment was that you do indeed like it. A similar experiment with olives had the opposite result - but you must have had the theory that you would like it - or at least the curiosity to do the experiment anyway. Your belief that books by Ann Rand are not worth reading probably come about because you read one and indeed it wasn't worth reading - and your have extrapolated from that (perhaps dangerously) to the view that none of her books are worth reading. Since this is not exactly a scientific conclusion, you might not be all that surprised if another person performed a similar experiment on a different Ann Rand book and came to the opposite conclusion. You might feel the need to repeat the experiment by reading this other book to see if your original hypothesis (that you can extrapolate from one book to an authors complete output) is in fact correct. All of this is perfectly good use of the scientific method. It's so natural that we do it all the time in our daily lives without thinking about it. What is unscientific is a refusal to believe in something no matter the evidence - or to believe in something that is unfalsifiable and therefore subject to Occams' razor. If you are a scientist - you'll probably find it hard to come up with examples that fall into that category in your daily life. SteveBaker 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science is more than just empiricism. Anyways, as far as I know, Fideism and rationalism are not theoretically better or worse than empiricism - it's just that the latter has far more success these days - anyways, I'll try to come up with something I believe that's not in any way empirical - I may have somevalue judgements for that. WilyD 04:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's try again - ~99.85% of scientists believe evolution to be true (well, shown experimentally and observationally - as an astronomer I have no problem with the second one being "scientific") and the percentage is likely to be much higher in sciences where people might have some reason to know anything about the subject. I expect we can all agree that the percentage of biologists who believe evolution to be true observationally cannot possibly be so low as 99.85%. Same with other sciences where daily you're confronted with a myriad of evidence that the standard model of the universe's history is essentially correct - Astronomers, for instance, would probably find it much harder to be creationists than engineers would.

Human evolution is not special, and the consensus here seems to be the commonsense position that scientists who accept that evolution is observed to be true but reject the observations on human evolutions (and physiology) that show that we have a common ancestor with other apes quite recently (~1- 10 million years) are probably a much smaller minority (after all, we can find the odd instance of a scientist who rejects evolution - there are a handful) given that there's no instance of such a guy (or dame) alive today. But let's say it's an order unity correction to disbelievers and say:

There's no evidence of any debate in the scientific community over whether humans and apes have a common ancestor (one which you'd no doubt call an ape) and whatever debate scientists are forced to make with those outside of science revolves around the validity of science as a whole and evolution specifically, but the specific instance of human evolution is not debated outside of the wider debate on the validity of evolution as a whole

So sum it up and say '"The number of scientists who ~~reject~~ accept human evolution from an ape (whatever that means, given that we're clearly apes today) is greater than 99 and three quarters percent.

As a scientist, I'll tell you we do sometimes estimate the "bettings odds" of a theory or observation Ernest Rutherford said You should never bet against anything in science at odds worse than $10^{12}:1$ against. This is probably the odds you'd assign as a scientists in the area (how would I know - I'm an astronomer) of human evolution for apes - something shown so convincingly you wouldn't know how to begin estimating whether it's wrong. Similar to Is there a scientific consensus the earth orbits the sun? might naturally lead to 99.85% of scientists accept the Copernican Principle' without the rest of the question answered we'd infer the meaning to be the same.

This is longwinded. Sorry. But I think we can safely say ~0.1 - 0.2% of scientists dispute that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes which would undoubtably be called an ape. The ones who do are likely to be clustered outside the relevent areas, so there's far less debate within the scientific community on whether this is the case. WilyD 11:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "So sum it up and say '"The number of scientists who reject human evolution from an ape (whatever that means, given that we're clearly apes today) is greater than 99 and three quarters percent.". You meant accept instead of reject, right? 213.48.15.234 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the odds of that being a typo in the 10¹²:1 range - so I'm betting it was. :-) SteveBaker 13:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not take that bet - you're right, it was a typo, which I've now fixed. WilyD 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might not find it too hard to find a biologist who would argue that the common ancestor of man and gorilla should not be called an 'ape' - but that's just a name choice thing. You won't find many (if any) who would say that there is no common ancestor. The evidence in that regard is overwhelming...like you can go to a museum and hold the actual skull of that creature in your hand. You can compare it to a modern human skull and to that of a gorilla or a chimpanzee and see how they are really similar. Then you can go to other museums and hold other skulls that are somewhere between that first one and the other two - you could take those skulls and lay them out in a 'V' shape with the common ancestor at the bottom of the V and the human and gorilla skulls at the upper tips - then proceed to see where the other skulls lie on the two arms of the V - you could see all of the small changes that got us from the creature at the bottom to the two different creatures at the top - laid out on a table in front of you. The results are quite utterly compelling. We have no other scientifically reasonable explanation for this. There isn't some other theory to explain where mankind came from out there that scientists are arguing over. We have alternative theories for things like string theory or quantum chromodynamics - we have several theories about the origins of the solar system - there are several different schools of thought about whether black holes evaporate or not. But not so for the existance of humans - it's evolution or magic - nothing else fits the facts. The only other way we could imagine this could have happened is if some really nasty supernatural being with magical powers decided to quite deliberately waste the brief lives of thousands of well meaning biologists by planting false evidence to mislead them. If such a vicious, malicious entity exists in our universe - the very last thing I'd want to do would be to worship it! SteveBaker 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the science of 'what'. But science has not answered 'why'. Religion might be slow to acknowledge science (to wit, flat earth, helio-centric solar system, etc) but they do get there and religion does not collapse when they do. The same will be true for evolution. It will eventually be accepted by all mainstream religions and integrated. Science is not the antithesis of religion. Acceptance of evolution would not cause religious collapse. God will remain because science doesn't give meaning to facts. Man's nature is to question his existence and this simple thing appears to be unique in the animal kingdom. Why is this such a fundamental part of our nature not selected for in other species? Science tells us today that our universe ends either as a forever expanding entity that will eventually die out. Or it will crunch to singularity. Both scenarios are bleak for humans if there is nothing else, yet scientists don't stop doing research with this knowledge under their belts. Until science can provide purpose, it will not replace faith even in scientists. Here's a simple experiment that I consider analagous: hold your hand over a candle. There is a neurochemical reaction that sends a signal from your hand to your neurochemical organ in your head. Science says that the neurochemcial reaction is all there is. Yet your brain says it "hurts". How much science will your brain need to understand before it stops hurting and becomes a string of completely identified neuro-chemical events? How much science will make the pain irrational and go away? Will knowledge eliminate the "irrational" concept of pain? --Tbeatty 07:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speechless...but I can still type! Where does one start with such a pile of nonsense!

You claim that science has not answered "why"?! That science doesn't give meaning to facts?!?! That an utterly bizarre claim!! That's entirely what science does - that's what it's all about! The "why" of evolution (for example) is that the fundamental laws of the universe do not allow things to happen any other way. DNA doesn't copy perfectly every time - and sex means that genes are always being shuffled around - so variation between individuals is an inevitable consequence of chemistry and statistics. If you have a population of individuals who are not identical - then some will do better than others by virtue of that difference. Thus the ones that reproduce faster end up dominating the population and before long the species has evolved. There just doesn't seem to be any possible way for that NOT to happen. Variation is an inevitability - evolution follows unavoidably from that. The "why" is because there is simply no other way for things to turn out - given the laws of physics that we have. You can ask the "Why" of why those laws are the way they are - and in some cases we can say it's because one law depends on a more fundamental law - but in other case we simply run out of explanations. This might be the chink in the armor that allows for mysticism and supernatural explanations - but it's simpler to say "Well, the laws had to operate one way or the other - in this universe it just happens to be that way."...but the "Why" of evolution is simply that it can't be any other way. If you tried to prevent it from happening - you wouldn't be able to. We'd dearly like to prevent "Bird Flu" from evolving into a lethal human flu strain - but we can't. We'd like for TB and AIDS viruses to not evolve to be resistant to our best drugs - but evolution is a powerful, unstoppable force.

Giving meaning to facts is what scientist do. Fact: "Pendulums swing at the same speed no matter how far they swing - the period of a pendulum depends only on it's length"...that's a bare fact. Has religion illuminated it at all? The best religion can say is that pendulums do that because God created them that way and that's what he wants. Science can tell you about the forces - how kinetic and potential energy interact in this delicate dance to make it happen. Science can predict the speed that a pendulum would swing on the moon - or on the surface of a neutron star. We can tell you how long a mile-long pendulum would take to swing. We can point out that the math says that this is in fact only an approximation to the actual truth so the original "fact" isn't strictly true after all. We can use a pendulum to show the rotation of the earth. Science and it's understanding of that one fact of the unlikely behavior of pendulums has spawned our first accurate clocks. What did religion tell us about that fact that comes close to this richness?

"Science doesn't provide purpose" !!!! Wow! It sure gives me purpose. I want to find stuff out - understand everything - tell what I learned to other people. Religion is the bleak one. If religion is true then the universe is run by one of the most unfeeling, vicious, sadistic bastards I could imagine. If we don't perform arbitary and meaningless rituals according to this beings random demands, we risk spending a literally infinite amount of time in the most terrible agony imaginable. No way! Religion is the antithesis of purpose. It forces you to do only what these dusty old books full of myths and legends dictate for you. Screw that! I may not have much time in my life - but I'm going to live it the way I want! You have the nerve - the temerity - the...argh...You tell me that I shouldn't investigate the ultimate fate of the universe! Damn! That's what I live for. I'm probably not going to be around then - but I'd sure like to know what happens in the final reel. Better that than being "judged" by the evil jackass that you guys are worshipping!

Science most certainly is the antithesis of religion - at least if you take it seriously. Science will not accept unfalsifiable assertions - religion can only exist if it's based on at least one unfalsifiable claim. That's a fundamental gulf. If religion is true - you can't do proper science...you have no clue what the result of an experiment means if an omnipotent creature can dink with the results, change your thoughts and perceptions at will and so forth. Some people tell me that God wouldn't do that - and in the next breath tell me that fossils were 'planted' by God to test our faiths. What's to say that that thing with with the pendulum is true? Maybe that's just a plant to test my faith too? Religion is being slowly and steadily pushed into the "God of the Gaps" trap - the only escape from which is to fall back on magic and superstition. Humans are addicted to the products of science - we like our gadgets - we like having power over the universe - something as simple as Wikipedia (surely one of mankinds most amazing use of technology) is far beyond anything that religion has ever come up with. Religion can't do that for you. Sure, you can pray for something - but your odds of getting it are no different than if you hadn't bothered. When science has a full and complete explanation for the whole behavior of everything (and we're very close to having that) - then religion can no longer claim to be necessary to explain (say) the origins of human existance - it'll have to start saying that science isn't just incomplete - it'll have to start saying science is WRONG. That's happening already with the 'Intelligent Design' nonsense - it's going to get worse.

Pain...well, we don't understand all of the brain yet. We know enough to provide the means for relieving most kinds of pain - we understand the mechanism. We know the "what" and the "why" (pain is a way to prevent creatures from accidentally damaging themselves - it evolved along with our other behaviors) - we know the "how", we've examined those rare people who can't feel pain - and noted that they are much worse off because of that (no surprise there - we evolved to have this inconvenient emotion for a reason). But we're not done with the brain yet. There is a lot we don't understand - that's not to say we'll never understand it though. I'm pretty sure it'll be a solved problem in the next 100 years.

SteveBaker 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical on the 99.85% statistic. You could just as easily say 98.3% of people wish to ban water. Where was this survey taken? What was the outcome the surveyor wanted? To what degree does it mean (microevolution for example)? — Daniel 01:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical of its (implied) margin of error. I think .15% is misleading, as if we know it to that accuracy. Accurately measuring a .15 acceptance rate from a random sample (because its so small), IIRC, would be very hard. I doubt it is accurate to 1 hundredth of a percentage point on the whole set. It looks like they did run some poll where 700 out of 480,000 people agreed with some form of evolution, but that's not statistical, even though that is one HUGE group! What percentage of the group we are measuring is 480,000? But what controls were placed on the study? How did they make sure that those believing in some form of non-evolution knew about the poll or took part in the poll? Some may have regarded the poll as yet another attempt to prove evolution by bandwagon effect and rejected even wasting time on it.) Something is a touch fishy there. Just say we believe that more than 99% accept evolution and the other group is so small we can't say how big it is. Root⁴(one) 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the issue is discussed here, but as I (and probably most of the other scientists here) will tell you - as someone working in science, I definitely say anecdotally there could be .15% of scientists from nonrelevent fields who are fruitcakes. In relevent fields (biology, phyics, astronomy) obviously it's much lower, but that number includes computer scientists and such I believe. WilyD 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Project Steve (which sadly I don't qualify to be a member of because you've gotta have a PhD). SteveBaker 03:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]